- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010052912023 NC: 2026:KHC:46931 W.P. No.2276/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2276/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. S.K. RAGHUPATHI S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED 40 YEARS R/AT SUGATTA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, H.M.HALLI POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 157. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. S. JAYASWAMY S/O CHIKKASANGAPPA AGED 48 YEARS R/AT SUGATTA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, H.M.HALLI POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 157. 2. SRI. S.N. MAHESH KUMAR S/O LATE NARASIMMAPPA AGED 33 YEARS R/AT NO.18, SONNAPPANAHALLI BETTAHALASOUR POST, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 157. 3. SMT. UMADEVI W/O LATE RAJANNA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT SUGATTA VILLAGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010052912023 NC: 2026:KHC:46931 W.P. No.2276/2023 JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 157. 4. SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE MUDDAPPA AGED 66 YEARS W AND A EMPLOYEE R/AT WHEEL AND AXEL FACTORY EMPLOYEES QUARTERS YELAHANKA-560 064. 5. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED 46 YEARS R/AT D.NO.4/1, 8TH MAIN ROAD CHANDRAMOULESHWARI EXTENSION H.M.HALLI, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.H. CHIKKAVENKATE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R1 R2 TO R5 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V/C/O DTD:09.02.2023) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.294/2015 ON I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, I.A.NO.VI FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, I.A.NO.VII UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY ORDERS DTD 12.12.2022 VIDE ANNX-G & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010052912023 NC: 2026:KHC:46931 W.P. No.2276/2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.5 to 7 in O.S.No.294/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.H.Chikkavenkategowda, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. 3. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.294/2015 seeking prayer for judgment and decree to declare that the respondent No.1-plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of the registered sale deed and revenue records along with the relief of permanent injunction. The suit schedule property bears old Sy.No.38/2 and new Sy.No.38/5, Khatha No.9 to an extent - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010052912023 NC: 2026:KHC:46931 W.P. No.2276/2023 of 4 guntas situated at Suggatta Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is to be noticed that suit summons came to be served on the petitioner-defendant No.1 and the said defendant entered appearance on 24.08.2015. It is to be noticed that none of the defendants have filed written statement. Hence, the trial Court recorded the evidence of PW1 and posted the matter for arguments. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed applications in IA Nos.5 to 7 seeking prayer to reopen the stage of the proceedings from arguments, sought permission to file written statement which came to be rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order. 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioner-defendant No.1, in the affidavits accompanying the applications has indicated the reasons that he had requested his counsel to prepare and file objections; however, he failed to do the same. Hence, he had obtained no objection vakalath and thereafter the matter was entrusted to another counsel - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010052912023 NC: 2026:KHC:46931 W.P. No.2276/2023 and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the written statement could not be filed. 5. It is to be noticed that the suit is for the relief of declaration sought by respondent No.1-plaintiff and the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, is also claiming the right over the very same property by contending that the acquisition of property by virtue of the registered sale deed is valid and that he has a superior right over the plaintiff. The issue involved in the suit is pertaining to immovable property. Hence, petitioner- defendant No.1 is required to be provided with one opportunity to put forth his defence in the suit and to permit him to adduce evidence. Otherwise, based on the plaintiff's evidence, the trial Court is likely to decree the suit by accepting the plaintiff’s version without there being any defence, which would cause injustice to the defendants. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010052912023 NC: 2026:KHC:46931 W.P. No.2276/2023 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India1, has held that the time stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is directory and not mandatory. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking note of the nature of dispute between the parties herein, I am of the view that, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner-defendant No.1 is provided an opportunity to file the written statement as well as to participate in the suit by cross-examining PW1 and permitting him to adduce the evidence on terms. 7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 12.12.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.5 to 7 in O.S.No.294/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., 1 (2003) 1 SCC 49 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010052912023 NC: 2026:KHC:46931 W.P. No.2276/2023 Devanahalli, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.5 to 7 are allowed. iii. The trial Court is directed to accept the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 subject to defendant No.1 paying cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the plaintiff. iv. It is needless to observe that defendant No.1 has a right to cross-examine PW1 and thereafter lead the evidence in a time bound manner without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39